5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Economy
Plurality of Canadians See US as 'Enemy' Thanks Almost Entirely to Trump: Poll
Canadians' disdain toward the US is driven almost completely by Trump, with 64% saying their opinions of the country would likely change if he were no longer president.
Sep 05, 2026
A survey released Saturday by polling firm Leger finds that a plurality of Canadians now view the US as an "enemy" nation thanks to President Donald Trump's repeated attacks on their economy and national sovereignty.
In all, the poll finds that 41% of Canadians now consider the US enemy, compared with 22% who say the US is an ally, and 22% who say the US is a neutral country.
In a similar poll conducted in June 2025, Leger noted, only 26% of Canadians said the US was an enemy.
Trump's trade war is a major driver of negative opinion among Canadians, as 63% of those surveyed say they expect the president's tariffs to have either a moderate or major impact on their personal financial situations.
Additionally, 74% of Canadians say they agree with their government's decision to retaliate against Trump's tariffs, even while acknowledging such retaliation will hurt the economy.
Canadians are also resentful of Trump's demands that Canada become the 51st US state, with 85% saying they do not want to become part of America.
The disdain toward the US is driven almost entirely by Trump, the survey finds, with 64% of Canadians saying their opinions of the country would likely change if he were no longer president.
In an interview with The National Post, Leger vice president Andrew Enns emphasized the centrality of Trump in Canadians' deteriorating views of their neighbor to the south, arguing that the US president "can move public opinion like nobody’s business."
Brian Rathbun, professor of international relations and political science at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, told The National Post that while Canadians aren't letting their dislike of Trump tarnish their opinions of Americans as a whole, that could change in the coming years.
"At some point, I think Canadians will start to get frustrated if this persists, even if it’s not what the American public wants," said Rathbun. "They can say, ‘Why is it that no one’s standing up to this particular bully?’ Then I think that you could get into something like a deeper problem that couldn’t be fixed by kicking this guy out."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Critics Warn Trump Beef Orders 'Won't Help Consumers or Ranchers' and Could Kill Protected Wolves
One conservation advocate said the impact of wolves on livestock pales in comparison to that of "recent trade agreements and the reality of ranching in the arid West under changing climate conditions."
Sep 04, 2026
Although President Donald Trump was surrounded by farmers and ranchers while signing a pair of beef-related executive orders in the Oval Office on Friday, some critics cast doubt on their effectiveness—plus highlighted how one proposal could prove lethal for protected wolves.
Trump is facing high beef prices and the looming midterm elections. After meeting with Brazilian billionaire Joesley Batista, a key shareholder for JBS, the world's largest meatpacker, the president last month paused tariffs on 300,000 metric tons of beef for 90 days to be sold at a discount. While signing the new orders on Friday, Trump signaled that the cheaper beef will be imported from Argentina, Brazil, and "a couple of other places."
Trump's latest orders are intended to appease the US cattle industry, which was angry about the August proclamation, by "cracking down on major meatpackers' dominance of the industry and seeking to implement new labeling standards," Politico explained. However, "it's not clear whether any of the steps announced Friday will assuage ranchers' concerns or have any impact in the short term, given that most of them would require regulatory changes or congressional action."
Food & Water Watch (FWW) food policy director Rebecca Wolf said in a statement that "President Trump is on an apology tour after his deal to flood US markets with foreign-imported beef—it's not working. Today's executive orders will do nothing to reverse the last two years of Trump's disastrous food policy."
"Under his watch, consumer beef prices are at record highs, and ranchers can't make ends meet, all while the multinational meat monopolies profit hand over fist," she stressed. FWW found last month that while JBS reported $131.7 billion in revenue and $2.4 billion in profit, and fellow industry giant Tyson reported $82.65 billion in revenue and $681 million in profit, "prices are up 23% for choice beef, 24.2% for ground beef, 24.7% for ground chuck, and 25.2% for chuck roast."
Wolf noted that "US agencies charged with protecting market competition sit on the sidelines, made toothless by Trump's reckless job cuts," pointing to thousands of staff reductions across the Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and threats to slash funding for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Packers and Stockyards Division.
Since Congress repealed mandatory country-of-origin labeling (MCOOL) for beef and pork in 2015, FWW has been among those pushing for its restoration. Trump's order directs Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, in consultation with the United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, to "review all statutory and regulatory authorities that may permit the establishment" of MCOOL for beef products, then issue or amend regulations, as permitted by law, and develop legislative recommendations.
"Consumers deserve to know where their food comes from. There is no excuse for keeping consumers in the dark."Tell the #WhiteHouse and #Congress, restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling for #Beef.#MCOOLSign & Share: form.jotform.com/262434091212...
[image or embed]
— Consumer Federation of America (@consumerfed.bsky.social) September 3, 2026 at 8:52 AM
As a diverse coalition that includes FWW circulates a "Label Our Beef" petition, Wolf said Friday that "it is clearer than ever that Congress must heed popular demand and restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling to give American producers an even playing field. And Trump must put his money where his mouth is and fund antitrust and fair trade enforcement to truly help American families and ranchers."
While FWW declared that "Trump's beef executive orders won't help consumers or ranchers," Angela Huffman, president and CEO of Farm Action, was more diplomatic, welcoming the language on MCOOL, meat processing, and Packers and Stockyards Act enforcement.
"These actions show the administration is listening to problems farmers and ranchers have raised for years, and we appreciate that," Huffman said. "They move in the right direction, but stop short of the stronger reforms independent producers need."
Farm Action supports legislation to restore MCOOL for beef, as well as Packers and Stockyards Act enforcement, but has argued that the latter "should be paired with stronger producer protections" and urged USDA "to reverse its planned rescission of the Inclusive Competition and Market Integrity rule, which would protect producers against undue prejudice, unjust discrimination, retaliation, and deceptive practices."
As for the harm that Trump's orders could do, one directs Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum to "make a determination as to whether the gray wolf and the Mexican wolf have met the recovery criteria for delisting or downlisting under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and, if he determines that the recovery criteria has been met," begin the process to end protections.
In addition to working with other officials on a legislative recommendation to strip federal protections from wolves, Trump told Burgum to "engage with states to encourage them to delist gray wolves and Mexican wolves from any state-specific lists of protected species and to revise their standards" for killing the animals "to assist ranchers in combating predation."
During an exchange in the Oval Office, Trump falsely suggested that ranchers can now shoot protected wolves.
Trump’s audience uncomfortably laughs as he makes a premature announcement that ranchers can now kill wolves who are on the endangered species list
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) September 4, 2026 at 2:41 PM
Kitty Block, president and CEO of Humane World for Animals, responded Friday that "the war on wolves needs to end, not escalate. They remain absent from much of their historic range and vulnerable to the same cruel trophy hunting, recreational trapping, bounties, and other relentless killing that nearly wiped them out of the lower 48 states. Rolling back federal protections now—or setting that process in motion—would jeopardize decades of recovery and open the door for brutal killing."
"Gray wolves are essential to healthy ecosystems, and decisions about their survival should be based on science, not political favors to farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods are threatened not by wolves but by tone-deaf global trade policies," she added.
Advocates at the Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project, Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, Wildlife for All, and Wolf Conservation Center also ripped the order's wolf language.
"This is a huge distraction to placate a handful of ranchers and make them believe that wolves are a greater threat than President Trump's own policies," said Greta Anderson, deputy director of Western Watersheds Project. "The impact of wolves on the livestock industry [pales] in comparison to the impacts of recent trade agreements and the reality of ranching in the arid West under changing climate conditions."
Claire Musser, executive director of the Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project, emphasized that "the Mexican gray wolf is not recovered simply because the population has grown... With just 317 wolves in the wild and a population still facing serious genetic challenges, weakening federal protections now would put decades of recovery work at risk. Decisions about the future of lobos must be based on the best available science and what these wolves need for long-term recovery, not political pressure."
Arguing the wolves "desperately need more care and less persecution," Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, promised that "we’re prepared to prove in court that downlisting Mexican wolves and a steep increase in killings would not only be cruel but also deeply unwise and illegal."
Keep Reading
Show Less
New Proposal From Trump SEC 'Makes Buying Politicians Great Again,' Watchdog Warns
"Donald Trump and his administration are rigging our markets to work for the wealthy and well-connected while working people pay the price."
Sep 04, 2026
The US Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday proposed axing anti-corruption rules designed to prevent investment advisers from using political donations to obtain business from public pension funds.
Finance industry watchdogs and Democratic lawmakers warned the SEC's proposal would potentially harm Americans' retirement accounts and further boost corruption in the federal government, where graft has become increasingly common and overt under the leadership of billionaire President Donald Trump. Better Markets said the SEC's plan to rescind the agency's longstanding "pay to-play" regulations "makes buying politicians great again."
“SEC Chair Paul Atkins has yet to meet a rule he does not want to rescind," said Benjamin Schiffrin, director of securities policy at Better Markets. "He has the SEC proposing to rescind a rule that prevents so-called ‘pay-to-play’ practices by investment advisers, where advisers make political contributions to government officials in the hopes that those officials will select them for the lucrative assignment of managing public pension funds and other government assets."
“Chair Atkins says the SEC is proposing to rescind the rule because it ‘has effectively resulted in the suppression of political speech.’ Not so," added Schiffrin. "It has resulted in the suppression of corruption. The rule was intended to, and does, ‘combat pay to play arrangements in which advisers are chosen based on their campaign contributions to political officials rather than on merit.’ Chair Atkins apparently believes that such arrangements should be promoted.”
The SEC's "pay-to-play" rules, enacted in 2010, barred investment advisers from providing paid services to government clients for at least two years after making a political contribution to an elected official or candidate.
The Trump SEC's proposal will face a 60-day public comment period once it is published in the Federal Register.
The Lever's Katya Schwenk and Freddy Brewster noted Friday that "after years of relatively weak enforcement, Biden’s SEC brought several charges against investment advisers for violating the pay-to-play rule in 2023 and 2024." For example, the Biden SEC charged Obra Capital Management for "continuing to provide investment advisory services for compensation from a government entity following a campaign contribution made by an associate to an elected official with influence over selecting investment advisers for the government entity."
"Since Trump came to office, the pay-to-play rule has been the subject of lobbying by financial powerhouses that are invested in public pension funds," Schwenk and Brewster reported. "BlackRock Funds Services Group, LLC, a subsidiary of the world’s largest asset manager BlackRock, Inc., spent more than $1.5 million in 2025 lobbying the SEC, Congress, the White House, and other regulators on the pay-to-play rule, among other matters, disclosures show."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the rules targeted by Trump's SEC prevent "elected officials from rewarding wealthy campaign donors with lucrative contracts to advise government investments."
The proposed rollback, said Warren, represents "another example of how Donald Trump and his administration are rigging our markets to work for the wealthy and well-connected while working people pay the price.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
'What a Disgrace': Trump Treasury Dept. Refuses to Close Billionaire's Private Jet Loophole
"While working families struggle to afford groceries, housing, and gas," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, the Trump administration "focuses on tax breaks for billionaires—including tax breaks for private jets."
Sep 03, 2026
A group of Democratic Caucus members in the US Senate on Thursday denounced the US Treasury Department under President Donald Trump over its refusal to close a gaping loophole in the federal tax code that allows some of the wealthiest people in the country to reap tax benefits from their ownership and use of private jets—even as working people and the middle class families struggle to make ends meet in Trump's economy.
In response to a previous request made in July by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to close a rule that allows the wealthy "to substantially undervalue the taxable cost of personal travel on a corporate private jet," a letter from a top Treasury official on Thursday said such an effort would be too "burdensome," including for the uber-rich taxpayers subject to it.
Known as the Standard Industry Fare Level (SIFL) loophole, the lawmakers have argued that it has been exploited by the extremely wealthy to lower their tax burden even as they travel the country—and the world—in the least energy efficient and most polluting way possible.
"President Trump’s 2017 tax law and Big, Beautiful-for-Billionaires bill handed billionaires and big corporations massive tax breaks on private jets," said Sen. Whitehouse in a statement. "The Trump administration now says it would be ‘burdensome’ to close the private jet tax loophole because this is an administration hell-bent on using the powers of government to make the ultra-rich even richer, and they don’t care if middle-class taxpayers get stuck with the tab."'
Alongside their July letter, the lawmakers shared analyses detailing the loss of the revenue made possible by the SIFL loophole. According to the Whitehouse's office,
analyses by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation detailing the boom in private jet sales after passage of Republicans’ tax cut for corporate jets and highlighting the extent of the tax revenue lost by the abuse of the SIFL loophole. One analysis responds to an inquiry from the senators on the tax consequences of the SIFL loophole, finding that a wealthy executive would pay roughly between $1,577 and $1,804 less in taxes for a flight from JFK airport in New York City to DCA airport in Washington, D.C. under the SIFL method. The fair market value of that flight could range from $4,500 to $5,112, but under SIFL, that executive would only have to report a value of $235.77.
Van Hollen on Thursday denounced the shamefulness of yet another Trump administration position that rewards the wealthy and powerful at the expense of working people.
"Trump’s priorities revolve around enriching himself and his billionaire friends. While working families struggle to afford groceries, housing, and gas, this Administration focuses on tax breaks for billionaires—including tax breaks for private jets," said Van Hollen.
"What a disgrace,” he added.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'At a Breaking Point': Survey Shows Teachers Working Second Jobs, Spending Hundreds on Supplies
"They are battling education funding cuts, out-of-control Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, limitations on what they can say, much less teach, and an affordability crisis," said one union leader.
Sep 02, 2026
As the academic year kicks off, survey results released Wednesday by the second-largest teachers union in the United States show how educators are struggling because of underinvestment in schools and high prices under a Republican-controlled White House and Congress.
In the lead-up to classes resuming, Grow Progress last month surveyed 2,112 American Federation of Teachers (AFT) members who teach kindergarten through 12th grade about spending, stress, President Donald Trump's policies, and more.
The pollsters found that a majority of respondents anticipate spending at least $100 to $600 on supplies for their classrooms without being reimbursed. Over a quarter said that school funding issues shift costs to teachers, and supply prices keep rising.
While 61% said they are buying basic supplies, that's not all that teachers are shopping for this year. Nearly a third are spending on food, hygiene, and student care items, and around a quarter are purchasing specialized tools and accessibility supports as well as items for classroom setup, organization, and decor. Roughly a fifth are buying books and rewards for students.
Half of the teachers surveyed said they anticipate needing to buy food for their students at some point during this school year.
Over three-quarters of them reported seeing negative impacts of the Trump administration's policies in their schools and communities, with 61% selecting "very negative." They pointed to funding cuts and privatization of schooling, immigration enforcement that "traumatizes students and families," rising costs, vulnerable students losing support and protection, political pressure that restricts teaching and inclusion, and issues with bigotry and hostility.
Gasoline prices have stayed at record highs lately thanks to Trump's illegal war on Iran, which has responded by restricting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key trade route. Just 15% of teachers said their commute will cost about the same this year, compared with 36% who expect it to be "a little more" and 47% worried it will be "much more."
A plurality—48%—blamed Trump and Republicans specifically for "the rising costs of groceries, gas, and other goods," while 28% pointed to government policies and leadership, 18% said tariffs and global instability, and 11% cited corporate greed and profiteering.
Prices for everything are climbing while the national debt races past $40 trillion. The bottom line? The current economy is not working for hardworking Americans. www.nytimes.com/2026/08/29/u...
[image or embed]
— AFT (@aft.org) September 2, 2026 at 9:45 AM
Asked to rank their stress level on a 1-10 scale, with 10 being extremely stressed, 62% selected somewhere in the 7-10 range.
Almost a third of teachers said they were somewhat or very likely to leave the profession in the next year. While over half of all respondents said they can't afford to lose their salary, pension, and benefits, and a quarter pointed to their love for teaching and students, nearly a fifth said the stress and workload make the job unsustainable.
"Teachers are at a breaking point," said AFT president Randi Weingarten said in a statement. "Many work more than one job to make ends meet, and they still dig into their pockets each year for basic classroom supplies, from books to art materials and even food for their students."
"They are battling education funding cuts, out-of-control Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, limitations on what they can say, much less teach, and an affordability crisis that's making it even harder for working families to get by, let alone get ahead," she emphasized. "No wonder they're stressed and talking about leaving the profession. All of this is taking its toll."
The survey results followed a report released late last month by the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the Economic Policy Institute that suggests leaving the field could lead to a pay boost. Sylvia Allegretto, a senior economist at CEPR and research associate at EPI, found that "in 2025, the teacher pay penalty stood at an estimated 25.2%—meaning teachers earned about a quarter less than comparable college graduates in other professions."
"Inflation-adjusted weekly wages for public school teachers fell 6.2% over the last three decades, while wages for other college graduates rose 28.8% over the same period," according to the report. "Teachers typically receive better benefits packages than other professionals, but after accounting for the difference in benefits, teachers' total compensation penalty was 14.5% in 2025."
Allegretto said in a statement that "the decades-long teacher pay penalty has taken a heavy toll on public education. Yet, policymakers have failed to make the needed investments to reverse course. That failure is especially troubling in a country as wealthy as the United States, with more than enough resources for its public schools to be the envy of the world."
It's not just teachers who are contending with soaring costs as school resumes; parents and students are also facing high prices for academic supplies and other essentials, including food, fuel, healthcare, and housing, due to the Iran War, Trump's tariffs, and GOP cuts to key programs.
With the midterm elections just two months away, Senate Democrats on Wednesday released a roundup of recent reporting on how families are struggling with back-to-school season, and said that "as Trump continues to claim affordability is a 'hoax' and a 'con job,' Americans are feeling the strain of Trump's policies on their pocketbooks."
"Headlines from across the country this summer lay bare Trump's cost-of-living crisis as families get ready to send their kids back to school," Senate Democrats stressed. "Parents are worried about the cost of school supplies and their kids' lunches, gas prices are at an all-time high for August, and families' vacations had to be cut short as rising inflation and the cost of airfare hit wallets."
"Trump's attempts to pass the buck belie Americans' reality: His illegal war in Iran, his tariffs, and the rest of Republicans' failed economic policies have made life unaffordable for families nationwide," they added. "Because of President Trump and Republicans' broken promises, working families across the country are now paying more but getting less—and they're fed up."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Nearly 2.5 Million Children Have Lost Medicaid and CHIP—So Far—During Trump’s Second Term
The drop in children covered by Medicaid comes before the most draconian changes to the program made by Republicans' 2025 budget law are set to take effect next year.
Sep 01, 2026
Nearly 2.5 million children living in the US have lost access to Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance Program coverage during President Donald Trump's second term, according to data published on Monday by the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families.
In total, five states have seen children's enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP fall by 10% or higher since January 2025, with Indiana seeing a drop in enrollment in those programs of more than 23%.
Colorado and Hawaii were the only two states to see a net increase in children in Medicaid or CHIP over that same period.
Joan Alker, executive director of the Center for Children and Families, described the drop in children enrolled in the programs as "a lot," and said it was important to track because "when Medicaid child enrollment declines, the number of uninsured kids typically goes up."
President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans cut spending on Medicaid by an estimated $900 billion over a 10-year period when they enacted the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025. The Congressional Budget Office projects these cuts will leave more than 10 million fewer people enrolled in the program by 2034.
One way the GOP budget law is projected to kick people off Medicaid has been to add extra administrative burdens and paperwork for people who qualify for the program.
As explained by a Scripps News report published last week, Medicaid starting next year will make beneficiaries enroll twice a year instead of just once, while also mandating adults who "earn above a typical income cutoff and do not have children... work or volunteer at least 80 hours a month, or enroll in school."
Eileen Appelbaum, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told Scripps News that this will result in many people not receiving Medicaid coverage despite being qualified for it.
"The best guesses from the experts are that two-thirds of the people that will be disqualified will actually be eligible, but they just couldn't handle the paperwork," Appelbaum explained.
In an op-ed published by Stat on Monday, Brown University epidemiologists Abdullah Shihipar and Brandon DL Marshall highlighted how getting out of the new Medicaid work requirements by proving yourself "medically frail" is shaping up to be a "nightmare scenario for millions of Americans."
"Let’s say you are undergoing cancer treatment, but you don’t have the right paperwork for your renewal," Shihipar and Marshall wrote. "As a result, you’re disenrolled from Medicaid. You desperately try to fix the mistake, but you are faced with long wait times and no answers, so you cease treatment altogether... Paperwork here is not merely an annoyance, it is a matter of life or death for millions with Medicaid coverage."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump Pharma Deals Called Distraction From 'Failed Plan to Lower US Drug Prices'
"Lasting relief requires transparent, enforceable measures that lower drug prices and hold big drug companies accountable," said one critic.
Aug 31, 2026
US President Donald Trump on Monday announced nine more agreements with pharmaceutical manufacturers intended to lower prescription drug prices nationwide, bringing the total to 26, but patient advocates responded skeptically.
The administration previously struck "most favored nation" (MFN) deals with 17 large drug manufacturers. The new ones with midsized companies—Alcon, Astellas Pharma, BeOne Medicines, BridgeBio, CSL, Kyowa Kirin, Sun Pharma, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and UCB—mean that 89% of the branded drug market is subject to an agreement, according to a White House fact sheet.
"It has been nearly a year since Trump announced his first secret MFN deal with Pfizer, and he has almost nothing to show for it," Peter Maybarduk, Access to Medicines director at the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a Monday statement. "The new deals are a distraction from the administration's failed plan to lower US drug prices to the levels paid in other wealthy countries."
Earlier this month, Public Citizen released an analysis of Trump's policies to cut drug costs, including MFN deals. Maybarduk said at the time that "Trump has three kinds of drug pricing policy: fake, exaggerated, and not-real-yet, probably-won't-happen."
Following Monday's agreements, the campaigner argued that "a more serious approach would build international reference pricing into Medicare drug price negotiation. Instead, Trump is cozying up to Big Pharma and keeping American drug prices high."
"There still is no evidence that any pharma company has followed through on prior commitments to the Trump administration to launch new drugs at MFN price points," he explained. "Uptake of TrumpRx, which may cause consumers to overpay on medicines, has been lackluster."
TrumpRx is a government-operated website that helps patients find discounted prices and coupons for certain medications—and, as the Public Citizen analysis highlighted, the only part of the president's MFN program that is fully underway.
"The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has not announced any state participants in a pilot to test MFN-based prices in Medicaid," Maybarduk noted. "And CMS has failed to issue final rules to test MFN-pricing in Medicare, while simultaneously excluding almost all drug companies from these programs."
Public Citizen said it plans to immediately file a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the texts of these "farce" deals—a pledge that came just days after US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) highlighted that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has failed to publicize initial 17 agreements, despite agreeing to do so during an April hearing.
Like Public Citizen, the advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs was critical of the new deals, with CEO Merith Basey pointing out that "for decades, drug companies have been charging Americans at least four times more for brand-name medicines than people in other high-income nations."
"Patients need systemic reforms that will lower drug prices, rather than short-term, voluntary agreements whose terms remain secret," she asserted. "The deals announced today focus on Medicaid, where steep discounts already exist, and even then, states can choose whether to participate. Lasting relief requires transparent, enforceable measures that lower drug prices and hold big drug companies accountable."
As the industry trade publication Fierce Pharma reported, the large companies behind the initial deals "made a combination of drug pricing commitments and domestic investment pledges to win temporary immunity from the Trump administration's drug import tariffs," and "individual company press releases Monday, like UCB's, suggest that tariff immunity is still very much part of the MFN equation."
Although Trump's tried taking credit for a recent drop in medication costs, with the White House X account claiming Monday that he's "leveled the playing field, and made prescription drugs more affordable than ever for the American people," as Common Dreams reported earlier this month, experts have cited the Biden administration's policy allowing Medicare to directly negotiate some prices.
As Trump has touted his MFN deals, critics of the United States' for-profit healthcare system have in recent months renewed calls for shifting to Medicare for All—which new research shows would save over 114,000 lives and $1 trillion each year—and other healthcare reforms, including breaking up industry giants, capping drug prices, strengthening antitrust enforcement, and expanding the sector's workforce.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump Hammered Over Iran War That Drove Gas Prices Above $4 Per Gallon Every Day in August for First Time Ever
"Donald Trump started a deadly and costly war with Iran that has driven gas prices through the roof, and Americans are breaking the bank to fill up at the pump."
Aug 31, 2026
President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran has achieved a significant milestone, but it's not one that many US voters will likely appreciate.
Data published by the American Automobile Association (AAA) on Monday show that the average price for gas in the US now stands at $4.08 per gallon, or $0.90 per gallon more than the average price one year ago.
Gas prices typically decline throughout summer months, but the spike in oil prices caused by the Iran War has kept prices elevated in August beyond anything seen in prior years.
"For the first time ever, the national average in August has been above $4 per gallon every day," explained AAA. "This month is poised to set a new record as the most expensive August at the pump, surpassing the previous August record set in 2022."
Kendall Witmer, rapid response director for the Democratic National Committee, slammed Trump in a Monday statement where she accused the president of making policy to benefit his fossil fuel industry donors while leaving working-class Americans holding the bag.
"Donald Trump started a deadly and costly war with Iran that has driven gas prices through the roof, and Americans are breaking the bank to fill up at the pump," said Witmer. "Meanwhile, Trump and Big Oil executives who donated to his campaign are profiting off his war, cashing in at the expense of hardworking Americans. In Trump’s world, the rich and powerful come first, while everyday Americans get left in the dust."
High gas prices have become a major political headache for Trump, as a recent analysis estimated that Americans have paid $71.5 billion more to fill up their cars thanks to the president's war.
Meanwhile, a mandated ethics filing released last week shows Trump made more than 1,000 stock transactions in June, including thousands of dollars invested in energy companies profiting off of his war.
CNBC reported on Monday that the president is scheduled to meet with US refiners and fuel distributors as part of an effort to lower gas prices ahead of the midterm elections in November.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Out-of-Touch Trump Says Communities That Reject AI Data Centers Will Be 'Backwards and Poor'
"Donald Trump is actively trying to help as many Democratic senators as possible get elected," said one polling expert.
Aug 31, 2026
President Donald Trump on Monday warned Americans that they risk becoming "backwards and poor" unless they allow Big Tech companies to build artificial intelligence data centers in their communities.
In a social media post, the president expressed indignation that any town or city wouldn't welcome data centers, which have drawn nationwide opposition for generating pollution and jacking up utility bills.
"The only reason that communities throughout the USA should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor," Trump wrote. "If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign."
In reality, AI data centers create very few jobs once they are completed, as most of their functions are fully automated.
Trump then said that Americans "will only have yourselves to blame" if they "kill the Golden Goose" that is AI data centers.
"China could not be happier with this anti Data Center movement," Trump wrote. "Actually, they can't believe it is happening!"
Building AI data centers has become massively unpopular throughout the US.
A poll conducted by Embold Research and published by Heatmap Pro earlier this month shows that 75% of Americans now oppose building AI data centers in their area, including 61% registering strong opposition.
While Republicans polled in the survey were more supportive of data centers than Democrats and independent voters, it nonetheless found that opposition among Republicans outweighed support by 43 points.
Polling analyst G. Elliott Morris marveled at how politically tone deaf the president sounds when it comes to data centers, commenting that "Donald Trump is actively trying to help as many Democratic senators as possible get elected."
Longtime GOP operative Frank Luntz similarly noted data centers' unpopularity, citing a recent Gallup poll showing 63% of Republican voters oppose having one of the facilities built in their communities.
"We’re about to see whether President Trump can sway those voters to support them, as he’s done on many issues before," Luntz remarked.
Democratic US Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed wasted no time tying the president's position on data centers to his opponent, Republican Mike Rogers.
"Make no mistake—this is Mike Rogers' position on data centers," wrote El-Sayed. "He's got up to $2.6 million invested in companies cashing in on the data center boom, all while Michiganders watch their utility bills soar. You can't trust a word out of Mike's mouth because he's only out for himself, for Donald Trump, and for Big Tech—not Michigan."
Faiz Shakir, a longtime adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), observed that Trump is merely "sharing the perspective of Wall Street and Big Tech" and is showing "no interest... in grappling with the mass revolt across American communities, or to learn anything from them."
Screenwriter David Simon, creator of the acclaimed television series The Wire, accused Trump of brazenly lying about data centers' economic benefits.
"If data centers are a geographic benefit to communities, you can be sure they'd be siting and building them in affluent and politically connected environs," wrote Simon. "Curiously, they're dumped in poorer, less influential places. Go fucking figure."
Republican Kentucky state Rep. Savannah Maddox took issue with the president disparaging communities opposed to data centers, which include many of the rural communities that voted for him in three presidential elections.
"Rural doesn’t mean 'backwards and poor' and development doesn’t always equate to being 'successful and rich,'" wrote Maddox. "President Trump wouldn't be president without the rural voters who inhabit America’s heartland. It is not wrong of us to question the sudden and wide-scale effort to convert arable land into data centers. We are not stupid for wanting to protect our rural way of life."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'America Is For Sale': Trump Reportedly Trying to Hand Private Developer Part of Yosemite
"Government of the people, by the people, but for friends and donors of the president above everyone else."
Aug 28, 2026
Even while repeatedly serving the interests of destructive industries, President Donald Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have claimed they are committed to protecting US national parks—but the Republican administration is now working to give a private developer a piece of Yosemite, NOTUS reported on Friday.
Specifically, according to unnamed sources and government documents, federal staffers are working on a potential land exchange to give a quarter-mile strip of land in California's Yosemite National Park "to a company that, through a web of limited liability companies, is operated by real-estate developer and investment firm Kingsbarn Realty Capital."
The developers own 83 acres west of the park, and Kingsbarn CEO Jeff Pori—whose company did not respond to a request for comment—aims "to build a short road connecting the property to one of Yosemite's central thoroughfares," providing "the land exceptionally rare private access to a park that is otherwise almost entirely buffered by national forests," NOTUS detailed.
The sources told NOTUS that political leaders at the US Department of the Interior "want us to be responsive to the property owner and their lobbyists or people, and they want us to work with these folks," and that "the political pressure being brought to bear is very unusual."
The National Park Service, which is part of the department, said that "no final decisions have been made," but any proposals "would be subject to all applicable federal laws, regulations, and departmental policies, including required environmental review and public notification processes."
The revelation—which came during National Park Week—was met with outrage.
Ripping the possible "secretive, backroom deal," as "an attack on the American people that own this national park," Mark Rose, the National Parks Conservation Association's Sierra Nevada program manager, told NOTUS that "it would also be unlawful, and a court previously rejected a road development proposal."
We are opposed to private developers building driveways and special access into our parks. The ultra wealthy can wait in line and go through the gate just like everyone else. www.notus.org/agencies/tru...
[image or embed]
— AltYellostoneNatPar (@altyellonatpark.org) August 28, 2026 at 9:00 AM
Sierra Club executive director Loren Blackford said in a statement that "Yosemite is not Donald Trump's to give away. This secretive deal betrays the purpose of our national parks and the promise our government has kept since Abraham Lincoln to protect Yosemite for the public and for generations to come."
"For more than 150 years, each generation has carried forward the responsibility to protect this sacred landscape and pass it on intact," Blackford continued. "The Trump administration is betraying that legacy by trying to hand parts of Yosemite to a private developer. We will use every tool at our disposal to stop this corrupt giveaway."
While the looming land swap could move forward without any sign-off from Congress, House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) was among those who spoke out on social media Friday.
"Our parks belong to all of us," the congressman emphasized. "These places should be protected for every generation, not sold off to Trump's ultrawealthy friends to profit off of. I will fight this, both for Yosemite and for every treasured park that would be up for grabs if this domino falls."
Columnist and self-described "recovering attorney" Wajahat Ali declared, "America is for sale," and American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said, "Government of the people, by the people, but for friends and donors of the president above everyone else."
While other critics condemned the reported efforts as "disgusting," "sickening," and "shocking," journalist Chris D'Angelo commented, "I would say this is shocking, but things have been headed in this direction since Trump reentered office."
After Trump won a second term in 2024—having secured campaign funds from Big Oil, and run on a promise to "drill, baby, drill"— one of his early actions post-inauguration was declaring a "national energy emergency" intended to boost the climate-wrecking fossil fuel industry.
Since then, while cashing in on his second presidency—including via stock transactions made this year as fuel prices soared due to his illegal war with Iran—Trump has continued to push policies that help polluters and other rich allies. For example, last week the administration delivered a "one-two punch" to national forests, taking aim at a pair of rules intended to protect such lands.
The Center for Biological Diversity warned this week that the Trump administration's proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would "open pristine public lands to road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development," and, according to the group's analysis, put 400 species on an "extinction fast track."
"More roads mean more sediment in streams, more fragmentation of wildlife habitat, more human access to places wildlife depend on for refuge, and more wildfires in forests already facing unprecedented climate change-fueled risk," the center stressed. "The roadless rule has held that line for a generation. Without it the losses to wildlife, water, and the wild places that define the American landscape will be irreversible."
This article has been updated with comment from the Sierra Club.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Watchdog Denounces 'Staggering and Disgusting' Hypocrisy of AI Industry Giants
"Put plainly, Silicon Valley is the problem threatening our ways of life."
Aug 28, 2026
Government watchdog Public Citizen on Thursday hit back at the artificial intelligence industry for warning about the dire threats posed by its own technology after it spent years trying to block any government regulations that could have curtailed dangerous AI behavior that experts and progressive lawmakers have warned about for years.
In an open letter sent on Thursday, dozens of tech companies—including OpenAI, Anthropic, Amazon Web Services, and Microsoft—claimed that there is a "limited window" to defend against AI-executed cyberattacks, which they said "will become far more widespread and sophisticated as models around the world become increasingly capable."
If nothing is done, the companies said, then crucial facilities "from hospitals to water treatment plants to the infrastructure that powers the internet" will be at risk.
The companies said that thwarting such AI cyberattacks would require a "global response" where governments will need to "fund cyber defense" and "give hospitals, water utilities, and local governments access to capable defensive AI, authorized testing, and hands-on support through trusted security providers and partners."
JB Branch, director of federal AI governance and technology policy at Public Citizen, urged lawmakers to be deeply skeptical of Big Tech’s messaging on the issue and the industry's proposed plan of action, which he said would further enrich Silicon Valley without providing any safeguards for the public when it comes to AI development.
"Big Tech does not get to unleash powerful AI systems, fight tooth and nail against meaningful regulation," said Branch, "and then cry for help when the dangers they helped create come knocking."
Branch noted that the tech industry has insisted for years that there should be no government intervention into developing technology, supposedly because it would put the US at risk of "losing" the AI race to China.
Now, Branch said, they are running to the government and demanding fast action to help solve a problem they created.
"That hypocrisy is equal parts staggering and disgusting," Branch said. "If the threat is serious enough to demand urgent action from the government, then it is serious enough to demand binding rules, independent oversight, and accountability from the companies creating it."
The AI firms' open letter comes as the tech industry appears acutely concerned about public backlash to its products. The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that Big Tech firms who gave heavily to President Donald Trump have been scrambling to donate to Democratic candidates ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
In particular, according to the reporting, many tech companies who donated to Trump's ballroom and other vanity projects fear that a Democratic majority will start subpoenaing them for records that could lead to criminal investigations.
Cooper Teboe, a Silicon Valley donor adviser and Democratic strategist, has told Trump-funding tech companies that they will pay a big price unless they repair their relationships with Democrats whom they've alienated by going all-in on MAGA.
"You’re going to be totally fucked next year or you’re going to figure it out this year and you’re going to make amends," Teboe said, "and amends are going to be much more costly than they were previously."
As Branch put it, "Big Tech knows it has lost public support on AI, and the PR machine is now working overtime."
Despite industry efforts to control narratives and members of Congress, he said, the American people "aren’t going to forget the harms these companies unleashed, the regulations they fought, or their promises that AI could replace their jobs."
"Silicon Valley is the problem threatening our ways of life," Branch concluded. "It’s hard to take them seriously when they invented the problem in the first place.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy